If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Seeking to solve ongoing issues and questions about open carry, Connecticut Carry has published a letter refined from a letter previously sent to Cheif Metzler of the Seymour Police Department.

Please feel free to use the article download link to get the pdf and distribute it to your local PDs and individual police departments. Hand it out to people you meet whether you are carrying openly or not.

If people still don't understand open carry is legal after reading the article, I am not sure there is much hope for them ever understanding honestly.

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

why bother? You have the right to carry openly. cops don't care about your rights, they think they can do anything. throwing paper at them is going to have no effect. getting shot and sued is the only way.

This is my first post here, and I have to take a minute to give a little bit of defense to LEOs. I've read several posts on this site, and I find it a very interesting topic. I have learned quite a bit here.

I've noticed that davidmcbeth has some severe distain for LEOs. I just had to say that I'm a municipal LEO in CT, and while I understand many of your grievances, please know that not all LEOs are as bad as you make them out to be. I totally understand that there are plenty of cops who have a complex, but there are just as many, if not more, that are reasonable and understanding people.

As to the whole open carry issue, when I came on the job 6 years ago, I had no idea that CT was an open carry state, mainly because it was never taught in the academy. Even in the firearms section taught by state police they never talked about open carry. When I hit the street, from word of mouth, I understood that a displayed weapon in any way was a breach of peace arrest.

I only learned about the CT open carry laws about 2 years ago because my wife took the permit class, and she told me that the instructor talked at length about CTs open carry law. I started asking around the department and found a mix of officers knowledge of the proper laws. I think within the last two years, I have been encountering more and more LEOs who are now aware of the law, and I think its getting around.

So my point is, give us a little break. It's really not personal, it's truly a lack of training issue. We only know what we are taught.

On a personal note, I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, and I fully personally support and would advocate open carry. I've been considering doing it myself off-duty (sans badge displayed.)

This is my first post here, and I have to take a minute to give a little bit of defense to LEOs. I've read several posts on this site, and I find it a very interesting topic. I have learned quite a bit here.

I've noticed that davidmcbeth has some severe distain for LEOs. I just had to say that I'm a municipal LEO in CT, and while I understand many of your grievances, please know that not all LEOs are as bad as you make them out to be. I totally understand that there are plenty of cops who have a complex, but there are just as many, if not more, that are reasonable and understanding people.

As to the whole open carry issue, when I came on the job 6 years ago, I had no idea that CT was an open carry state, mainly because it was never taught in the academy. Even in the firearms section taught by state police they never talked about open carry. When I hit the street, from word of mouth, I understood that a displayed weapon in any way was a breach of peace arrest.

I only learned about the CT open carry laws about 2 years ago because my wife took the permit class, and she told me that the instructor talked at length about CTs open carry law. I started asking around the department and found a mix of officers knowledge of the proper laws. I think within the last two years, I have been encountering more and more LEOs who are now aware of the law, and I think its getting around.

So my point is, give us a little break. It's really not personal, it's truly a lack of training issue. We only know what we are taught.

On a personal note, I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, and I fully personally support and would advocate open carry. I've been considering doing it myself off-duty (sans badge displayed.)

So if someone with a New York Pistol License or a Mass Class A LTC carried in CT, would they be granted the same courtesy of not knowing the law?

Even if Open carry was not teached in the academy, people have issues with false arrest and/or intimidation by LEO's who simply don't like open carry. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and if a LEO didn't know open carry was legal in CT, a simple reading of the law or a phone call would clear up the issue.. No intimidation or false arrest is necessary.

I get the whole LEO thing and the "thin blue line" (which I completely reject as immoral and corrupt). I've been a LEO for quite some time now... And I open carry sometimes depending on the weather and what activity I am engaged in.

This is my first post here, and I have to take a minute to give a little bit of defense to LEOs. I've read several posts on this site, and I find it a very interesting topic. I have learned quite a bit here.

---------snip--------

So my point is, give us a little break. It's really not personal, it's truly a lack of training issue. We only know what we are taught.

On a personal note, I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, and I fully personally support and would advocate open carry. I've been considering doing it myself off-duty (sans badge displayed.)

Understanding and good working relationships are very much a two-way street. It is an unfortunate truth that the unpleasant experiences garner more attention and that the routine daily non-offending ones do. It is decidedly against OCDO roles and intent castigate LE or LEOs.

Thank you for coming here and sharing your views. Look forward to hearing more from you and your brothers.

Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

So if someone with a New York Pistol License or a Mass Class A LTC carried in CT, would they be granted the same courtesy of not knowing the law?

Even if Open carry was not teached in the academy, people have issues with false arrest and/or intimidation by LEO's who simply don't like open carry. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and if a LEO didn't know open carry was legal in CT, a simple reading of the law or a phone call would clear up the issue.. No intimidation or false arrest is necessary.

I get the whole LEO thing and the "thin blue line" (which I completely reject as immoral and corrupt). I've been a LEO for quite some time now... And I open carry sometimes depending on the weather and what activity I am engaged in.

I totally hear what your saying...again I can only say that we are expecting when we go into the academy to be educated on all applicable laws that we are enforcing, just like you would expect the same from an instructor in a permit class. You would expect that he would tell you everything that you needed to know regarding carrying a firearm in CT, right? What else are you paying him for?

When we graduate from the academy, we are given a badge and a certification telling us that we were given everything we need to know about policing, and obviously, that is not the case. I'm just saying there is a major training flaw within the CT POST that needs to be fixed.

Have you gone to Hartford and given testimony against the magazine limits several sessions ago or to the micro-stamping of ammo or called your representatives and tried to get the laws changed? Or talked about the M16's that your dept. has purchased and the concern about finding the actual purpose of these firearms being stockpiled by civilian police departments?

I think everyone believes in the 2nd amendment -- ITS THERE - in black and white ;;; even O'bama believes in it.

Agree that a higher level of specific training would be of great benefit as it pertains to OC and the RKBA; however, even amongst lawyers with a particular acuity in that area there may be a difference of interpretation on some points. What seems to be needed is an application of common sense - a person not engaged in committing a crime of violence or property ought not have to be concerned whether his otherwise peaceful conduct (carrying a self-defense tool) is a crime or not - that is primarily the responsibility/concern of your state legislators.

Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

I totally hear what your saying...again I can only say that we are expecting when we go into the academy to be educated on all applicable laws that we are enforcing, just like you would expect the same from an instructor in a permit class. You would expect that he would tell you everything that you needed to know regarding carrying a firearm in CT, right? What else are you paying him for?

When we graduate from the academy, we are given a badge and a certification telling us that we were given everything we need to know about policing, and obviously, that is not the case. I'm just saying there is a major training flaw within the CT POST that needs to be fixed.

No academy teaches you all law, it isn't possible. It would take over 4 lifetimes to read every federal law and code of federal regulations, state, and local law.

LEO's, like doctors, like stockbrokers, like teachers, and like every other profession, should keep up on their profession. When I run into something I do not know, I ask a superior or I try to look online. If neither option is available, I err n the side of caution and assume whatever activity took place is lawful.

Expecting your instructors to be right is dicey at best. I would verify stuff as much as possible and not rely on instructors, I feel that my professionalism and my own butt is on the line.

Even if the average CT LEO isn't a gun guy. It would behoove them to learn gun laws since CT has a high rate of gun owners, Pistol Permits, and NFA firearms.

Have you gone to Hartford and given testimony against the magazine limits several sessions ago or to the micro-stamping of ammo or called your representatives and tried to get the laws changed? Or talked about the M16's that your dept. has purchased and the concern about finding the actual purpose of these firearms being stockpiled by civilian police departments?

I think everyone believes in the 2nd amendment -- ITS THERE - in black and white ;;; even O'bama believes in it.

David, you hardly let the man say hello before you begin challenging him as to whether or not he has performed according to your standards of activism or not. I find that unnecessarily rude and unbecoming. There is no standard that unless one is 100% behind the specific goals/needs of an organization that they are then conclusively opposed. Even being neutral on a subject can be a positive thing. It is better, I think to make friends and influence people in a positive way, than to draw a line in the sand and say blues here and reds there. You divide, rather than join our forces.

To repeat a thought from John Pierce (one of the site owners) on a similar thread, "This needed to be said" for the good of the forum.

Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

Jeez man I don't know what LEO violated you in such a way that makes you so hostile, but go easy man...

How so ... you think our assault weapons ban is wrong?

Not sure on this one. I'm good with the AR-15 and what not (semi-auto) but I'm not sure fully automatic weapons or grenade launchers are prudent or necessary.

Have you gone to Hartford and given testimony against the magazine limits several sessions ago

Sorry didn't make it to that one.

or to the micro-stamping of ammo

I do not support microstamping

or called your representatives and tried to get the laws changed?

I did contact my reps when they were discussing the "high capacity" magazines ban. I know I get privelages being a LEO, but my wife doesn't, and I want her to be fully equipped.

Or talked about the M16's that your dept. has purchased and the concern about finding the actual purpose of these firearms being stockpiled by civilian police departments?

I'm not sure what constitutes "stock piling" but police departments are arming their officers with weapons that better give them the ability to protect people from active shooter threats such as Aurora. I really wouldn't be too thrilled going to a "man with a AR" call only armed with my .40. Love us or hate us, when the call comes in WE go, not you. Can I have the same weapon you would want in that situation?

I think everyone believes in the 2nd amendment -- ITS THERE - in black and white ;;; even O'bama believes in it.

Not really sure what you're getting at here...is this a biblical reference? As in just because the demons believe in God it doesn't mean their saved? Sorry if my wording was unacceptable to you, would it be better if I said I SUPPORT the 2nd Amendment?

David, you hardly let the man say hello before you begin challenging him as to whether or not he has performed according to your standards of activism or not. I find that unnecessarily rude and unbecoming. There is no standard that unless one is 100% behind the specific goals/needs of an organization that they are then conclusively opposed. Even being neutral on a subject can be a positive thing. It is better, I think to make friends and influence people in a positive way, than to draw a line in the sand and say blues here and reds there. You divide, rather than join our forces.

No academy teaches you all law, it isn't possible. It would take over 4 lifetimes to read every federal law and code of federal regulations, state, and local law.

LEO's, like doctors, like stockbrokers, like teachers, and like every other profession, should keep up on their profession. When I run into something I do not know, I ask a superior or I try to look online. If neither option is available, I err n the side of caution and assume whatever activity took place is lawful.

Expecting your instructors to be right is dicey at best. I would verify stuff as much as possible and not rely on instructors, I feel that my professionalism and my own butt is on the line.

Even if the average CT LEO isn't a gun guy. It would behoove them to learn gun laws since CT has a high rate of gun owners, Pistol Permits, and NFA firearms.

I agree. However 5 years ago when you asked a Sgt, he would tell you lock em up for breach. Now, I think most supervisors are aware of the law...Most of the ones i've spoken to anyway.

Don't judge the whole team, because one pitcher threw a wild pitch when you first came up to bat.

I think I mentioned earlier that the negative encounters do get more press and some cause some emotions to run high. Still the goal/intent is to take people at face value, not judge them by any preconceived/prejudicial opinion. Too a thick skin never hurts in this less than personal cyber world. BTW - you are not alone here as there are numerous LEOs and people in allied fields on OCDO and like the rest of us, a majority stick to facts and avoid unnecessary negative context.

Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

I know I'm not from CT, but welcome to OCDO lucky! please don't judge everyone on a few persons point of views there are alot of great folks around the OCDO forums and I'm sure a lot that would love to hear your points of view too. I'd just like to apologize for the rude welcome and recommend poping your head in the Colorado Sub forums every once in a while for some conversations! Welcome again to OCDO!

Semper-Fi
~Wolf~

"Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand!
Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!
Preserve our great republic and each God-given right,
And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright!"
-Thelen Paulk

Hi Luckyykid ! Welcome to the forum. Sorry for the viewed gruffness of the initial response but I was curious as to what you thought was a pro-2nd amendment viewpoint on issues that CT has dealt with in recent history. I try to be brief and concise & this is sometimes (or often) misconstrued. Its my writing style. Please note that I cannot make readers feel anything, only they themselves can emote their feelings.

I'll agree with grapeshot that my viewpoints of the rights afforded us under our natural rights and 2nd amendment rights are seen by a small minority of this forum members to be over broad. I am hardly trying to divide. But there is no need to make a consensus either as most of the various goals desired by members (especially our state, CT) will not be decided by our legislature but by our courts...people in Chicago had been trying to get handguns back into the city for many years but, in the end, it only took one gentleman to get the job done or at least get over the largest hurdle.

I believe that all weapons and weapon systems that are commonly available and used by the military and militias or have such application should be readily available to all. I think that most members would agree. This is just a guess of course based on my reading of posters' postings. The right to carry is also a natural right that is also codified within our 2nd amendment (and without regard to "suitability" as in our state). Courts have just now been agreeing with some of these viewpoints. Our right to keep and bear arms preceded our constitution ~ its a right we are born with, given to us by our creator long ago.

Hi Luckyykid ! Welcome to the forum. Sorry for the viewed gruffness of the initial response but I was curious as to what you thought was a pro-2nd amendment viewpoint on issues that CT has dealt with in recent history. I try to be brief and concise & this is sometimes (or often) misconstrued. Its my writing style. Please note that I cannot make readers feel anything, only they themselves can emote their feelings.

I'll agree with grapeshot that my viewpoints of the rights afforded us under our natural rights and 2nd amendment rights are seen by a small minority of this forum members to be over broad. I am hardly trying to divide. But there is no need to make a consensus either as most of the various goals desired by members (especially our state, CT) will not be decided by our legislature but by our courts...people in Chicago had been trying to get handguns back into the city for many years but, in the end, it only took one gentleman to get the job done or at least get over the largest hurdle.

I believe that all weapons and weapon systems that are commonly available and used by the military and militias or have such application should be readily available to all. I think that most members would agree. This is just a guess of course based on my reading of posters' postings. The right to carry is also a natural right that is also codified within our 2nd amendment (and without regard to "suitability" as in our state). Courts have just now been agreeing with some of these viewpoints. Our right to keep and bear arms preceded our constitution ~ its a right we are born with, given to us by our creator long ago.

Returning thread to its original purpose

Seeking to solve ongoing issues and questions about open carry, Connecticut Carry has published a letter refined from a letter previously sent to Cheif Metzler of the Seymour Police Department.

Please feel free to use the article download link to get the pdf and distribute it to your local PDs and individual police departments. Hand it out to people you meet whether you are carrying openly or not.

If people still don't understand open carry is legal after reading the article, I am not sure there is much hope for them ever understanding honestly.

Sorry about the distraction/hijack, but thanks to all that responded to clear the air, particularly davidmcbeth's response. I remind all that words do have meaning and to think how they may be received/perceived.

Not sure on this one. I'm good with the AR-15 and what not (semi-auto) but I'm not sure fully automatic weapons or grenade launchers are prudent or necessary.

Welcome to OCDO Lucky, as others have said sometimes our emotional sounding responses can get the better of us, it's hard to "hear" tone in a forum. I am sure no one was purposely trying to demean you, your occupation or opinion.

That being said what you posted here caught my eye. You say you are not sure if our AWB is wrong and then respond that, "I'm not sure fully automatic weapons or grenade launchers are prudent or necessary."

Just want to make sure you are aware that our AWB has nothing to do with fully automatic weapons or grenade launchers (both of which are regulated in depth by the Federal Government).

Our AWB simply denies the people of CT from purchasing guns based on their appearance, for example you state you're pretty good with an AR but yet I cannot buy an AR-15, I have to buy a clone, like a Stag or Bushmater because the Colt AR-15 is banned by name, in their infinite wisdom our legislature then went beyond that and decided to add to the AWB list any semi auto rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and contains 2 or more "deadly" features, like that crazy bayonet lug, pistol grip, flash hider, etc...the real crazy part is that I can buy an "assault weapon" as long as it is not banned by name in the statutes and it was manufactured prior to 9/1994.

The entire law is bogus and needs to be removed do to its utter stupidity of banning a gun based on it's looks and not it's function.

.the real crazy part is that I can buy an "assault weapon" as long as it is not banned by name in the statutes and it was manufactured prior to 9/1994..

And you can actually thank that to the Benjamin case which struck down the vagueness of the wording of the statue.

I recently read NJ AWB and they have similar language .. I wonder if theirs passed muster in the NJ courts?

If course, the Benjamin case concurred with IL case law that was struck down (ie CT supreme court never considered the 2nd amendment, only our constitution). So the Benji case is toast. Problem is you'll either need to go to federal court or all the way up to CT supreme court before an appeal to SCOTUS ... since one can get an identical weapon anyway nobody has been bothered to do so yet.

A M16/AR15? I'm a wicked shot with one with iron sights, sweet guns (ya just gotta clean them and oil them properly or else they'll jam) -- I've seen copies sold at Dick's and other mom & pop gun shops... its nice to see our local PDs are stocking up on them in towns with rampant crime, like East Windsor. Do you think the feds give away stuff & expect nothing in return? Hahahaha ... but don't blame me, I voted for Kang ! And I actually put in a certificate application to buy a AR15 several years ago .. DESPP & me had fun over that... The AWB is clearly unconstitutional.

I have the most horrible non-technical writing skills & most of my writing is to people in France, they actually like my writing style... and man they love to argue. If they were able to own guns and a 45 v 9mm debate post was made I would guess it would zip up to 1000 posts in 10 minutes (and with only 3 guys posting!).

I have the most horrible non-technical writing skills & most of my writing is to people in France, they actually like my writing style... and man they love to argue. If they were able to own guns and a 45 v 9mm debate post was made I would guess it would zip up to 1000 posts in 10 minutes (and with only 3 guys posting!).

We been cautioned 10,000 times to not exaggerate and just stick to the facts

Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

And you can actually thank that to the Benjamin case which struck down the vagueness of the wording of the statue.

I recently read NJ AWB and they have similar language .. I wonder if theirs passed muster in the NJ courts?

If course, the Benjamin case concurred with IL case law that was struck down (ie CT supreme court never considered the 2nd amendment, only our constitution). So the Benji case is toast. Problem is you'll either need to go to federal court or all the way up to CT supreme court before an appeal to SCOTUS ... since one can get an identical weapon anyway nobody has been bothered to do so yet.

A M16/AR15? I'm a wicked shot with one with iron sights, sweet guns (ya just gotta clean them and oil them properly or else they'll jam) -- I've seen copies sold at Dick's and other mom & pop gun shops... its nice to see our local PDs are stocking up on them in towns with rampant crime, like East Windsor. Do you think the feds give away stuff & expect nothing in return? Hahahaha ... but don't blame me, I voted for Kang ! And I actually put in a certificate application to buy a AR15 several years ago .. DESPP & me had fun over that... The AWB is clearly unconstitutional.

I have a friend who lives in East Windsor. Big farm town. Tell me, what's all the rampant crime there, kids partying too hard or maybe some cow tipping??